And here is Rossi's confirmation with Frank:
"We have measured only that resistance [the 1 Ohm resistor] because that is the only resistance we have in the circuit."
If this is real, then strap up, because the world is about to change bigly.
And here is Rossi's confirmation with Frank:
"We have measured only that resistance [the 1 Ohm resistor] because that is the only resistance we have in the circuit."
If this is real, then strap up, because the world is about to change bigly.
"We have measured only that resistance [the 1 Ohm resistor] because that is the only resistance we have in the circuit. If the E-Cat has a resistance, that makes our calculations more conservative, because, as you well know, the resistance goes in the denominator when you make the calculus of the amps. You have volts as the numerator, and the resistance as the denominator. So the bigger the resistance, the smaller is the amount of amps.
"To be conservative, since the datum of the resistance of the E-Cat QX is confidential, we just do not consider the resistance. Because correctly we should have to make the sum of the resistance of the resistor that has been put in the circuit, and the resistance of the E-Cat. So we should have amps = volts/R1 (the resistor)+R2 (the resistance of the E-Cat). But we do not consider the resistance of the E-Cat, we consider it as if it is a perfect conductor, and we only consider the one 1 Ohm to make the calculation of the amps."
Note those are Frank's initial written notes he took while talking with Rossi. Frank has made several clarifications to them on ECW. For example, parens should be around the two Rs.
And the biggest takeaway, again, is that the only resistance in the circuit is from the 1 Ohm resistor.
Where was that photo with the whiteboard taken?
I believe Ahlfors, pointed out the photo was taken in The States by zooming in at the water bottle in the front. Cannot find his post this quickly. It was a local water from a certain state. My guess is it was NC.
Rossi, appears to be giving a lecture to his team. Around the leakage of this photo more pictures were leaked.
Cheers,
JB
Note those are Frank's initial written notes he took while talking with Rossi. Frank has made several clarifications to them on ECW. For example, parens should be around the two Rs.
And the biggest takeaway, again, is that the only resistance in the circuit is from the 1 Ohm resistor.
There is indeed only one "proper" resistor. But the rest of the E-Cat shown (I would guess made of steel and nickel for the electrodes) is live/part of the circuit and must have a resistance itself. The current was measured without knowing the total resistance of the circuit. As the total resistance of the circuit has to be larger than that of the 1 Ohm resistor, ignoring the total resistance of the circuit would make input power calculation less conservative, not more conservative.
https://www.swtc.edu/Ag_Power/…cture/series_circuits.htm
Quote"The same current flows through each part of a series circuit"
Icircuit = 0.12A
R1 = 1 Ohm
R2 = X
Rcircuit = R1+R2
Vcircuit = Rcircuit * Icircuit
Pcircuit = Vcircuit * Icircuit
You can easily see that if R2 is larger than 0, input power would also be larger.
This is a very basic calculation by the way. Rossi must be intentionally trolling people here.
No trolling.
Rossi is, as ever, secretive.
And he states it, by the way.
Il y a beaucoup de différence entre l’esprit de Géométrie et l’esprit de finesse. En l’un les principes sont palpables, mais éloignés de l’usage commun, de sorte qu’on a peine à tourner la tête de ce côté là manque d’habitude ; mais pour peu qu’on s’y tourne on voit les principes à plein ; et il faudrait avoir tout à fait l’esprit faux pour mal raisonner sur des principes si gros qu’il est presque impossible qu’ils échappent.
Mais dans l’esprit de finesse les principes sont dans l’usage commun, et devant les yeux de tout le monde. On n’a que faire de tourner la tête ni de se faire violence. Il n’est question que d’avoir bonne vue : mais il faut l’avoir bonne ; car les principes en sont si déliés et en si grand nombre, qu’il est presque impossible qu’il n’en échappe. Or l’omission d’un principe mène à l’erreur : ainsi il faut avoir la vue bien nette, pour voir tous les principes ; et ensuite l’esprit juste, pour ne pas raisonner faussement sur des principes connus.
Tous les géomètres seraient donc fins, s’ils avaient la vue bonne ; car ils ne raisonnent pas faux sur les principes qu’ils connaissent : et les esprits fins seraient géomètres, s’ils pouvaient plier leur vue vers les principes inaccoutumés de Géométrie.
Are you telling me that ITER researchers are not performing any sanity checks on their experimentation?
In the early eighties they made a sanity check with the follwoing result:
Even if we use the best neutron shield, with single isoptope material, it will soon get activated and has to be replaced latest after 8 years. The cost of building such a single isotope screen can not be estimated as no method is known to produce it...
ITER uses the most idiotic form of hydrogen fusion ^{3}H + ^{2}H in a purely kinetic & stochastic environment. LENR, LENR - like (Holmlid) fusion types use structured matter with lower degree of freedom, that allows to burn Deuterium only, with virtually "no" radiation (neutrons).
Even worse, classic physicists believe that they understand fusion... That is true: They know how to ignite a hydrogen bomb... Except that they never understood the Lithium reaction. (Seen in Lipinski.)
With only one voltage quoted the capacity for Rossi-style mismeasurement is essentially infinite.
The plot and post hoc attempts to justify the unjustifiable thicken!
Having the reactor and sensor resistor R in series, measuring the voltage V across the whole circuit, using this as an upper bound on the reactor current (V/R) and reactor voltage V would indeed be safe and conservative.
What however Rossi has clearly said, in his paper, in his comments to Frank, and in the picture on the whiteboard, is that he is measuring the voltage across the resistor. We can all agree.
Now look at the circuit on the white board. This has plasma gen and resistor in parallel not series. In this case, the voltage across the plasma generator is precisely known (same as across the resistor). The current is not known, nor is the input power. Given Rossi's ability to write random things on a whiteboard, and so many configurations that do not safely measure power, the chances that Rossi has done this must be small. As has been pointed out normal people, given weird results like COP=20,000, do sanity checking. Rossi does not.
His comment on his blog that he has for curiosity made a dummy (post hoc ECW blog comment about not trusty measurements without a control) and tested it does not help at all. Note the revealing use of the word dummy. Of course, a control is that because the dummy is measured under the same conditions as the real device, and results compared. Rossi has never done this, although he has used dummies.
We know he considers control tests unnecessary, has no concept of why they are helpful, and we know he is incapable of explaining to anyone else how he has actually measured the input power in such tests.
Rossi has no ability (and quite obviously no interest) in making any safe determination of input power here. He is no doubt convinced this is small. Unfortunately he does not understand (or does not wish to understand) electrical circuit theory.
What I think happens here is that those forum readers who from prior bias, like IHFB, want to fit facts into a framework of "Rossi talk rubbish but even so his devices work" take the random incoherent comments and find some way it will fit. Rossi reads blogs and will where ECW readers get steamed up enough in the end recycle one of these "fit the comments to a working device" scenarios.
He has done this again and again. A classic example was the missing heat from the long-term test where Rossi came out with endothermic reaction parroting blog comments, only to change his tune in Court and claim the imaginary heat exchanger.
I will happily admit that given an arbitrary ability to believe statements Rossi makes in writing and in published research papers are just wrong, and a careful reading of his post hoc interviews with Frank - IHFB can remain secure in his knowledge that there is a reading that to him makes sense (where the definition of making sense is anything that is consistent with Rossi's devices working).
It is quite a spectacle.
Display MoreWith only one voltage quoted the capacity for Rossi-style mismeasurement is essentially infinite.
The plot and post hoc attempts to justify the unjustifiable thicken!
Having the reactor and sensor resistor R in series, measuring the voltage V across the whole circuit, using this as an upper bound on the reactor current (V/R) and reactor voltage V would indeed be safe and conservative.
What however Rossi has clearly said, in his paper, in his comments to Frank, and in the picture on the whiteboard, is that he is measuring the voltage across the resistor. We can all agree.
Now look at the circuit on the white board. This has plasma gen and resistor in parallel not series. In this case, the voltage across the plasma generator is precisely known (same as across the resistor). The current is not known, nor is the input power. Given Rossi's ability to write random things on a whiteboard, and so many configurations that do not safely measure power, the chances that Rossi has done this must be small. As has been pointed out normal people, given weird results like COP=20,000, do sanity checking. Rossi does not.
His comment on his blog that he has for curiosity made a dummy (post hoc ECW blog comment about not trusty measurements without a control) and tested it does not help at all. Note the revealing use of the word dummy. Of course, a control is that because the dummy is measured under the same conditions as the real device, and results compared. Rossi has never done this, although he has used dummies.
We know he considers control tests unnecessary, has no concept of why they are helpful, and we know he is incapable of explaining to anyone else how he has actually measured the input power in such tests.
Rossi has no ability (and quite obviously no interest) in making any safe determination of input power here. He is no doubt convinced this is small. Unfortunately he does not understand (or does not wish to understand) electrical circuit theory.
What I think happens here is that those forum readers who from prior bias, like IHFB, want to fit facts into a framework of "Rossi talk rubbish but even so his devices work" take the random incoherent comments and find some way it will fit. Rossi reads blogs and will where ECW readers get steamed up enough in the end recycle one of these "fit the comments to a working device" scenarios.
He has done this again and again. A classic example was the missing heat from the long-term test where Rossi came out with endothermic reaction parroting blog comments, only to change his tune in Court and claim the imaginary heat exchanger.
I will happily admit that given an arbitrary ability to believe statements Rossi makes in writing and in published research papers are just wrong, and a careful reading of his post hoc interviews with Frank - IHFB can remain secure in his knowledge that there is a reading that to him makes sense (where the definition of making sense is anything that is consistent with Rossi's devices working).
It is quite a spectacle.
Nice! Keep on pushing. Hopefully we'll discover new insights.
Cheers,
JB
@THHuxleynew, I cant see how you think the resistor and reactor are in parallel, seems clearly in series to me.
Just show me the light for his system running off of a AAA 1.5V battery for any extended period (say 1 hr.) and I would be astounded. I do not understand how one could get a continuous plasma outputting light from 100 mV. If he claims that he needs 100 mV, then a simple resistor divider could provide that. Again, not power supply from the wall but a standing, independent power source. If he needs a current regulated system (as some suspect), then circuitry could be built using the battery as well.
BTW: a AAA battery has about 1.4 WHr of energy (to 1.2V) so 20W (are we talking about 20W or just a slight glow as I am confused about that point) of light for 1Hr would be quite impressive.
@THHuxleynew, I cant see how you think the resistor and reactor are in parallel, seems clearly in series to me.
Malcolm - i've just reread the relevant pic and indeed you are right. My apologies, and thanks for correcting me! So I take that back.
THH
We know he considers control tests unnecessary, has no concept of why they are helpful, and we know he is incapable of explaining to anyone else how he has actually measured the input power in such tests.
What would you imagine a control for this experiment to consist of? And btw, I believe that he has recently stated elsewhere that he has performed control experiments on the QuarkX.
Probably goes without saying, but if there is no way to set up a proper control in a context such as this one, that would seem to be a flaw in the experimental design. But since calorimetry is being used, presumably you could use a resistance heater as a control.